You open the door for me once more --- Well Jan, you are responding as I asked not to. It is the nature of examples that causes difficulty for some. It is not the example but the illustration of a point being made. Simply because the point is made doesnt mean I think it is simple or easy or anything else that could be read into a comment. people devote their entire lives to the field. So, I can only make a point and make it as short as possible.
The point is -- DBT tests are Not the end all of the story or facts. And point #2, it is usually after the DBT is done and subjected to the wider field and longer time that the truth can be learned in a wider context.
In audio, we have not done our due-dilligence after the DBT. So -point #3 - keep an open mind for possible changes and understandings.
In other words - to put it bluntly - dont be so smug about a DBT result.
Let's move on.
Thx for the opportunity to get this off my chest.
THx-RNMarsh
You're beating a straw man. A listening test isn't adequate just because it's a DBT. No one has ever claimed that. BUT... a listening test that's not double blind is inadequate and invalid. Double blind is NECESSARY in any kind of sensory analysis, but it's not sufficient. It's one element, though the most commonly neglected/ignored in fashion audio and paranormal claims.
I agree. Its not sufficient and That is too often over-looked by the comments read here and else where.
When I read too many times about this matter, my internal counter trips my Time to Remind jump-to-location where the Remind is stored and played.
Without good metadata to mine we can only keep an open mind regarding the DBT results.
Thx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
There's all sorts of valid data (i.e., using DBTs and good experimental design) available on listening tests of audio gear, ripe for your meta-analysis. See Floyd Toole's book, for example, or the numerous papers by JJ Johnston, Sean Olive, Stanley Lipshitz, David Moran, David Clark, Earl Geddes...
I don't understand why you think that the data isn't out there.
I don't understand why you think that the data isn't out there.
Richard, sorry to persist, but you've lost me now.
Assuming a DBT that fullfills all the requirements for 'blindness', statistically valid # of trials and # of participants etc, iow a well conducted DBT. That DBT leads to some conclusion.
Are you suggesting that as we do more and more of these DBTs and look at them in combination, we might have to revise our conclusions?
Not trying to split hairs, just trying to understand exactly what we are discussing.
jan
Assuming a DBT that fullfills all the requirements for 'blindness', statistically valid # of trials and # of participants etc, iow a well conducted DBT. That DBT leads to some conclusion.
Are you suggesting that as we do more and more of these DBTs and look at them in combination, we might have to revise our conclusions?
Not trying to split hairs, just trying to understand exactly what we are discussing.
jan
I have dribbled out various bits and pieces of info/concepts here throughout the year I have been reading this DIYAUDIO thing. If you could connect them all together, as I have in my mind, you would -maybe- have a better appreciaton for what I am after and why and how. BUT.... that is my fault and the makeup of this forum which goes off in any and all direction every other page. So, I shall have to leave it at that. Personally, I am most interested in getting to the bottom of what can be done towards making Hi-FI sound even more like real live music playing in my room. I have read, designed, tested, amps, acoustics, speakers and have a better Hi-Fi system because of it. but, it doesnt still sound the way live instruments do when playing in my listening room. Not even close. I know some of the issues/reasons and they have been discussed but not solved. What else can be found by sifting thru the massive metedata for new discovery and correlations? Is there a unifying field theory equivalent?
Its my one year anniversary at DIYAUDIO. And, its hotter than h--l today and its otherwise a nice day to be outside over here on this side of the planet. Check it out --> 2,400 posts and 6/day. More than I ever intended.
Thx-RNMarsh
PS-I havent seem Vol. 5, yet :-(
Last edited:
Not quite, I've been working with computers for 3.5 decades, CT scanners, Cray's, but the advance is somewhat swift for my taste.
(then, I was raised to use what goes by the name John-farmer-whistle sense here, and do not abide to trends and fads. So far I'm right nine of ten times, whether it's real estate bubbles, bank crisis, stock markets, technology fashions, advertising, or BS of any flavor. Each morning, I call myself an idiot when I look into the mirror, that helps)
The reason why England has been venue of choice for plaintiffs is because as a practical matter, that defense ends up not being applicable. It won't take long to find numerous examples of this abuse (most of the ones I know about are political, so aren't suitable for discussion in this forum). The key part was the presumption of guilt on the defendant, which is not true of ANY other civil or criminal process. The reforms of three months ago are a small step in the right direction, but the elephant in the room (presumption) unfortunately remains.
Here's a hypothetical: Pretend there's a fellow, let's call him "Jasper," who sells bogus products using wild claims. He offers no data to support his claims and they make no sense to anyone understanding basic physics or engineering. Someone (let's call him "Stan") tests his bogus products and shows that even the vague and wild claims are absolutely untrue. "Jasper" is called a fraud. "Jasper" sues. "Stan," assuming he can afford a lawyer (no contingency in defense cases, so he's better have a few hundred thousand quid in his pocket!) defends himself by pointing to all of his data. "Jasper" argues that this may all be well and good, but he doesn't believe the data and points out that "Stan" doesn't have actual documents written by "Jasper" acknowledging that the false claims were made knowingly (an element of fraud). "Jasper"'s lawyer argues, "My client MIGHT be mistaken, but he's not a fraud and there's no proof that it's fraud." The burden is now on "Stan" to find the documents if "Jasper" was silly enough to turn them over in discovery.
Stan is toast.
It isn't anywhere near that simple. Calling someone a fraud implies deliberation on the part of the fraudster, true. First, There are undoubtedly equivalents to the NZ Fair Trading Act in England providing a remedy for misleading and deceptive conduct in Trade; under this Act deliberation is irrellevent.
Secondly, proof of fraud is often taken from surrounding circumstances; an actual admission of fraud is unusual in any event. Say, for example, Jasper had persisted with his claims in the face of communications with Stan which put him on notice of the lack of basis for his claims, then this would go a long way to demonstrating fraud.
Had Stan published a statement saying that Jasper's statements have no scientific or engineering basis then he would be fine under English defamation law. He chose to ramp it up by impugning something a little more difficult to prove, Jasper's state of mind.
I can't argue with the economies of litigation nor the burden of proof being on the defendant, that is something they need to change.
Last edited:
Not quite I was look for spell them out as it where of define them. However enumeration does also apply as yet neither has been set forth. Sorry for the bit of confusion .
But unfortunately, it is not likely proof enough to overcome the presumption of guilt. Jasper just says, "Sorry, I don't believe it, I have testimonials!!! I'm an honest businessman, that physics stuff that the defendant keeps talking about is irrelevant; besides which, it's all based on super-secret defense technology, and I can't testify about that."
England's laws are uniquely bad, which is why it's the Mecca for libel plaintiffs.
Sorry I Don't use ipad . My real question is the placebo effect stronger than the hard science used to measure changes in a stereo . Or are the wrong thing being measured that have an extremely poor corollary to how human process sound.
Don't worry, it's there ... the biggest headache is the need for attention to detail, this undermines nearly all efforts that are typically made, by even those most devoted to achieving optimum results. I've used this analogy, or equivalent, many times - you need the audio, electrical equivalent to an air tight space for astronauts, no good if only 99, 99.5, or 99.98% leak free - the only thing that is going to keep people in space alive is having a quality of airtightness where the number of significant figures reaches seemingly ridiculous precision.
I stumbled upon the "good sound" purely by accident, which is why all this talk of DBT to me is meaningless gibberish. No-one told me, persuaded me that such could happen, there was nothing in magazines, in the audio community in print or in person that hinted of the possibility. Yet, there was the 'effect', I could make it come and go on command so to speak, though it was much easier to make it go,
.The unifying field theory is that obnoxious little bastard, 'the devil's in the details' ...
'the devil's in the details' " So is God it all a matter of what you are looking for !Don't worry, it's there ... the biggest headache is the need for attention to detail, this undermines nearly all efforts that are typically made, by even those most devoted to achieving optimum results. I've used this analogy, or equivalent, many times - you need the audio, electrical equivalent to an air tight space for astronauts, no good if only 99, 99.5, or 99.98% leak free - the only thing that is going to keep people in space alive is having a quality of airtightness where the number of significant figures reaches seemingly ridiculous precision.
I stumbled upon the "good sound" purely by accident, which is why all this talk of DBT to me is meaningless gibberish. No-one told me, persuaded me that such could happen, there was nothing in magazines, in the audio community in print or in person that hinted of the possibility. Yet, there was the 'effect', I could make it come and go on command so to speak, though it was much easier to make it go,
The unifying field theory is that obnoxious little bastard, 'the devil's in the details' ...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.